Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up: 29th April To 5th May 2024
Apoorva Pandita
8 May 2024 8:45 AM IST
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Section 24 A Aims To Uphold The Consumer Protection Act 1986, Ensuring Its Effectiveness By Preventing Prolonged Litigation In Consumer Fora: NCDRC Case Title: Sunita Kumar Vs. St. Stephen's Hospital The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker(member), held that...
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sunita Kumar Vs. St. Stephen's Hospital
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker(member), held that Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, serves as a safeguard to the effectiveness of the law by preventing challenges that could unnecessarily prolong cases in Consumer Fora, thus preserving the integrity of the legislation.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Shalini Srivastava vs Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and Dr Sandhya Shanker (Member) held that if the insured fails to disclose all material facts in the proposal form, the claim is liable to be repudiated irrespective of whether the cause of death was related to the non-disclosed facts or not.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Commission Holds Emaar Land Liable For Deficiency In Service Due To Delay In Possession
Case Title: Mohan Shyam Dubey Vs. MS Emmar MGF Land Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice A.P. Sahi, held that buyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession when projects are not completed on time.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Timeless Jewels
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and Sadhna Shanker (Member) held that insurance companies cannot appoint surveyors indiscriminately solely to get a favourable report. The appointment of multiple surveyors without any reasonable cause was held to violate the IRDA Regulation No. 64.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Giri Raj Prasad
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr J. Rajendra (Presiding Member) held United India Insurance Company liable for wrongfully repudiating a valid insurance claim of a stolen tractor based on a delayed intimation of 10 days. The NCDRC held that delay in intimation of claim was no longer an issue in insurance disputes.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: East India Transport Agency vs Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising J. Rajendra (Presiding Member) held that an entity engaged in commercial activities solely for the purposes of profit-making cannot be said to be covered under the definition of a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Even if the commercial entity subrogates its right to recover the amount to a 3rd party, the 3rd party would not be considered a 'consumer' for the purposes of the Act.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Eldeco Infrastructure & Properties Ltd Vs. Rajinder Sharma
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker(member), held that the interest rate charged for delay in possession may be altered according to market conditions.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: MS. Premium Acres Infratech Pvt Ltd Vs. Devinder Singh Cheema
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker(member), held the builder's failure to deliver the flat on time constituted a clear deficiency, which was worsened by arbitrarily cancelling the allotment upon receiving a legal notice from the complainant.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Akash Hospital & Diagnostics Vs. Attam Chand Mandhotra
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the National Commission can only intervene in cases if it finds that the State Commission has acted beyond its jurisdiction and failed to exercise its jurisdiction.
Competition Commission of India (CCI)
Case Title: Somnath Banerjee vs Apex Lab and Others
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) bench, consisting of Ms Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Mr Anil Agrawal (Member), Ms Sweta Kakkad (Member), and Mr Deepak Anurag (Member), held that in the absence of evident anti-competitive behaviour, decisions concerning the purchase or sale of products are primarily influenced by the commercial considerations of market players. Consequently, the CCI closed information filed against various pharmaceutical entities for allegedly neglecting to promote a dietary supplement, as there was no vertical agreement among them.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mr. Praveen Chauhan Vs TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside member Ms. Pinaki, held that if possession is not delivered within 42 months or beyond 48 months, it constitutes a deficiency in service on the part of the builder.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ms. Anita Gupta Vs. Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Company Limited
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside members Ms. Pinaki and Mr. J.P. Agrawal, held HDFC Insurance liable for deficiency in service over the rejection of a health insurance claim solely on the presence of non-communication of pre-existing conditions.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Burden Of Proving Medical Negligence Lies With The Claimant: Delhi State Commission
Case Title: Col. Jeetendra Gulati Vs. Max Super Speciality Hospital
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside members Ms. Pinaki and Mr. J.P. Agrawal, dismissed a complaint against Max Super Speciality Hospital and held that mere claims lacking supporting evidence cannot be regarded as valid proof and burden of proof to prove a medical negligence lies with the claimant.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs. Ms. Suman Rana & Anr.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside member Ms. Pinaki, held that even in cases where the insured violates their insurance policy terms, the insurance claim can resolved, though with modified conditions.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ms. Sapna Khemani Vs. M/S Parsvnath Dev. Ltd
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside member Ms. Pinaki, held Parvsnath Developer liable for deficiency in service due to failure to hand over the possession of the purchased property to the buyer for more than 13 years. The Commission also ruled that mere verbal claims without supporting documentation are insufficient to establish a property purchase as commercial.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mr. Sushil Rastogi Vs. M/S Regal Emporio Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside member Ms. Pinaki, held that a company bears sole responsibility for completing the construction within the agreed-upon time-frame, ensuring the complainant does not bear the consequences of their deficiencies.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Bihar)
Case Title: Meena Devi vs The Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Miss Gita Verma (Presiding Member) and Mr Raj Kumar Pandey (Member) held National Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failure to disburse a valid accidental claim, despite acknowledging the existence of the policy and receiving all relevant documents. In the absence of a clear explanation for its conduct, the State Commission enhanced the period and amount of interest levied on it by the District Commission.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh
Case Title: Brij Bhushan vs Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Anr.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Inder Singh Mehta (President) held that delay of intimation of claim to the insurance company is insignificant if the information concerning the incident was duly informed to the police within a reasonable time. Consequently, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. was held liable for wrongfully repudiating a valid accidental claim based on late intimation.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Bihar)
Case Title: The Branch Manager, State Bank of India and Others vs Shiv Chandra Kumar
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Bihar) bench comprising Ms Gita Verma (Presiding Member) and Md. Shamim Akhtar (Judicial Member) set aside the order of the Vaishali District Commission against the State Bank of India. The State Commission found discrepancies in the Complainant's version, who alleged unauthorized transactions while using SBI's ATMs.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand
Case Title: Deputy Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs Sh, Hasim
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench comprising Ms Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member), allowed an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited. The allegations against the Insurance Company involved the repudiation of an accidental claim based on the absence of the Complainant's name in the insurance policy. The bench held that the Complainant failed to transfer the insurance policy into his name within 14 days of transferring the vehicle's ownership. Therefore, he was not entitled to the insurance amount.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Vikas Bansal vs BYJU's Tuition Centre
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench, consisting of Shri Pawanjit Singh (President), Mrs. Surjeet Kaur (Member), and Shri Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member), held Byju's liable for failing to deliver the promised amenities in a course and subsequently, failing to refund the amount despite acknowledging it.
